the sparapetut'iwn in armenia in the fourth and fifth centuries

7/31/2019 The Sparapetut'iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries

1/42

TheSparapetut'iwn in Armenia

in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries

by Robert Bedrosian

This article was published in the journalArmenian Review Vol. 36 #2(1983) pp. 6-46. Robert Bedrosian

received a Ph.D. from Columbia University's Department of Middle East Languages and Cultures in 1979.

One of the most important offices in Arsacid Armenia belonged to thesparapetor commander-in-chief of the

armies. Like many other offices in the Armenian kingdom such as those of the coronant, the chamberlain, and

the master of the hunt, thesparapetut'iwn was a hereditary charge held traditionally by the senior member of

one family, the Mamikoneans. Exactly when thesparapetut'iwn was instituted in Armenia is not known, since

the earliest relevant Armenian sources (fifth century) give a confused picture of the establishment of Arsacid

offices in the country. Likewise the time of the abolition of the office is unclear since one meets Mamikonean

sparapets after the fall of the Armenian Arsacid kingdom (A.D. 428) and during the seventh and eighth

centuries. In the medieval Bagratid and Arcrunid kingdoms as well as in Cilician Armenia, thesparapetut'iwn

was still an important office, although with the removal of the Mamikoneans to the Byzantine empire in the

late eighth century, its occupants were drawn from other lordly (naxarar) families.

Because of Armenia's strategic geographical position between two mighty and inimical powers,

Rome-Byzantium on the west and Iran on the east, the country was often forced to participate in the

campaigns launched by one empire against the other. As an ally of the one and a border state of both,

Armenia was subjected to devastation by the armies of both empires. The almost perpetual state of war which

was endemic between Armenia and its neighbors, as well as warfare within the country between the Arsacid

kings of Armenia and theirnaxarars, made thesparapetut'iwn an institution capable of rivaling the country's

bnik ters ("native lords"), that is, the Arsacid kings themselves.

Etymologically the wordsparapetderives from the Parthianspadapet(spad-army,pat-leader) which in turnderives from the Old Persianspadapaitis (1). The Iranian origin of this word and of other Armenian Arsacid

official terminology is a reflection of Armenia's long cultural and political ties with Iran which date from

Achaemenid times (2).

Although there exists no separate study of thesparapetut'iwn, both Iranists and Armenists perforce have

commented on the importance of this office and its occupants in their works on Iranian and Armenian soclety.

Among Iranists treating the SasanianEran-spahbadthe most detailed information is found in the writings of

A. Christensen and G. Widengren. Christensen, inL'Iran sous les Sassanides, wrote that in the Sasanian

hierarchy each of the four social groupings, the clergy (asravan), soldiers (arteshtaran), bureaucracy

(dibheran), as well as the commoners (vastryoshan) and artisans (hutukhshan), had a supreme head. The

chief of the military was theEran-spahbad, and until the time of Xosrov I (531-579), the Iranian army wasunder the command of a singleEran-spahbadwho performed the threefold functions of minister of war,

commander-in-chief, and negotiator of the peace (3).

As a result of Xosrov I's military reforms, fourspahbads were created in place of a single leader. Thespahbad

of the east controlled the armies of Khurasan, Sacastan, and Kerman; thespahbadof the south, the armies of

Pars and Susiana; thespahbadof the west, the armies of Iraq to the Byzantine frontier; and the spahbadof

the north, the armies of Media and Azerbaijan (4). Since the rarely-encountered officer known as the

arteshtaransalar(chief of the warriors) is not mentioned after Kavadh and theEran-spahbadwas abolished

during the reign of Kavadh's successor Xosrov I, Christensen equates the two terms (5).


2/42

InL'Iransous les Sassanides. Christensen expressed doubt that an office as important as that of the

Eran-spahbadcould be hereditary in one family. G. Widengren cites the transmission of the Armenian

sparapetut'iwn in the Mamikonean family as an example of such a tendency and believes that the Iranian

Eran-Spahbadwas also a hereditary position (6).

Among Armenists, thesparapetut'iwn has been examined most notably by N. Adontz and C. Toumanoff.

Adontz placed the consolidation of the Mamikonean holdings in the southern district of Taron during the reign

of king Trdat the Great's son Xosrov II Kotak (ca. 330-339). While noting the existence ofsparapets prior to

the accession of king Arshak II, Adontz seems to place the real establishment of thesparapetas a courtofficial (gorcakal) during Arshak Il's reign (350-367) (7).

InArmenia in the Period of Justinian, Adontz wrote:

The Mamikonean assparapets, were said to stand above all thezoravark'or military

commanders. The Armenian army was made up of many contingents furnished by the princely

houses. Each of these detachments was commanded by its own prince, but the supreme

command belonged to the hereditarysparapets, the Mamikonean house, who, in this sense stood

"above all the princes and their armies" (8).

Thus thesparapetstood at the head of the princely class just as the hazarapetstood at the head of thepeasant population (9). According to Adontz, the division of command of the army under foursparapets

found in the history attributed to Movses Xorenac'i does not correspond to historical reality. Finally, Adontz

observed the important position which the bishop of the Mamikoneans occupied in ecclesiastical affairs:

The bishop of the Mamikonean held the leading position in the Church after the patriarch or

Catholicos, the influence of the naxararsystem is obvious in this case. Just as the hereditary

Mamikancansparapets stood at the head of the nararars under the Arsacids and even later, so in

ecclesiastical affairs, the chief administrator found at the side of the Catholicos was the

representative of the same house (10).

Toumanoff believes that the Mamikoneans were the "immemorial dynasts" of Tayk', a district on the Armeno-

Georgian border, and were possibly of Georgian origin. Although he mentions Mancaeus, defender of

Tigranocerta against the Romans (B.C. 69), as the first historically visible member of the dynasty, Toumanoff

does not specify when thesparapetut'iwn was entrusted to the Mamikoneans. He notes that by the fourth

century this family had acquired half of Taron centered in the castle of Oghakan on the Arsanias river. By

439, as a result of the will of St. Sahak, the last descendant of St. Gregory, the Mamikoneans acquired the

other half of Taron centered in the city of Ashtishat as well as the principalities of Bagravande and Acilisene

making them "the greatest territorial princes of the Monarchy, ruling a State that nearly sundered it into

two halves" (11).

Toumanoff compares thesparapetwith the Iberian (Georgian)spaspet(12) who, unlike thesparapetheld an

apparently non-inheritable office (13) which included civil as well as military functions (14). Finally,

Toumanoff suggests that while in Sasanian Iran both anEran-spahbadand anAspahbad(master of the horse,

i.e., head of the cavalry) coexisted, in Armenia this could not have been the case since the Armenian army

was primarily cavalry. He concludes therefore that the term aspetwhich the Armenian sources apply to the

Bagratid princes was not an official, administrative, but merely a family title (15).

Before turning to an examination of the relevant Armenian sources on thesparapetut'iwn, some general

observations on these sources are in order. First, none of the sources considered in this study was written

while the Arsacid dynasty ruled Armenia. The Arsacids were deposed in the Byzantine-controlled portion of

the country in 390 and in the Iranian-controlled portion in 428. The earliest example of classical Armenian

writing to survive, the Bible, was not finally translated until after 431 (16). The historical sources with which


3/42

we are concerned describe a kingdom which had long since lost its glory. Thus, although thesparapetut'iwn

outlived the kingdom which created it and existed throughout the fifth century, one has no guarantees that the

sources faithfully describe this institution in the heyday of the state (i.e. as an Arsacid institution). Second, the

sources which have survived even from the post-428 period are few and belong to different genres. Koriwn's

Life of Mashtoc'is a biography; "Agat'angeghos'' is a short epic account of Armenia's conversion to

Christianity; theHistory by P'awstos Buzand is more a collection of episodes than a history; and Ghazar

P'arpec'i's work is a eulogy of the Mamikonean family. Third, although some of these books contain the word

"history" in their titles, not one of them is a history of Armenia. Instead they are, for the most part, the

products of House historians who have written about the role of a particular family in Armenian affairs.P'awstos Buzand and Ghazar P'arpec'i were both historians of the Mamikonean House. Thus their works

contain few disparaging remarks about their patrons and most likely numerous half truths and outright

distortions. Finally, one is obliged to eliminate from consideration two works traditionally accepted as fifth

century compositions: Eghishe's On Vardan and the Armenian War, and theHistory of Armenia attributed to

Movses Xorenac'i. Serious doubt was raised about the dating of Eghishe's history by N. Akinean who believed

that rather than describing the Vardananc' (450), the work might instead be an account of the late sixth

century rebellion also led by a Vardan Mamikonean (17). Eghishe, a Mamikonean sympathizer, is unknown to

the definitely late fifth century P'arpec'i who most certainly would have used the former's work had it existed

when he was writing. In any case, Eghishe's history does not contain any information on the sparapetut'iwn

which differs from what is found in P'arpec'i. As regards Xorenac'i, this enigmatic writer and/or editor seems

to have operated in the last part of the eighth century. He is violently anti-Mamikonean and provides muchinformation on thesparapetut'iwn which contradicts the sources which will he examined here. For this reason

Xorenac'i's history cannot be ignored, but neither can it be classed with authentic fifth century sources. A

discussion of Xorenac'i's information on thesparapetut'iwn therefore is confined to the notes (18).


4/42

I. TheLife of Mashtoc'

TheLife of Mashtoc'is a biography of Mesrop Mashtoc', creator of the Armenian alphabet, written by

Mashtoc's youngest pupil, Koriwn (19). The author implies that he wrote his work several years after the

death of Mesrop at the request of the then acting Catholicos Yovsep'. However, according to Ghazar

P'arpec'i, Koriwn's superior, Catholicos Yovsep' was taken prisoner and martyred by the Iranians shortly after

the battle of Awarayr (450-451) (20). It is difficult to see how Koriwn could have received his directive from

Yovsep' to write concerning Mashtoc' after Yovsep's arrest in 450-451. Furthermore, prince Vasak Siwnik',

who defected to the Iranians during the battle and subsequently was transformed into the traitorpar

excellence in Armenian literature, is praised by Koriwn as a brave and wise man (21). It appears, therefore,

that this work was written before the Armenian rebellion.

Koriwn notes that his teacher passed away in the first year of the Iraniam king Yazdgard II, son of Vahram,

i.e., in 440 (22), and that Mesrop's colleague Sahak died in 439 (23). He states elsewhere that the students of

Sahak assembled "year after year" to honor their teacher's memory (24). Thus Manuk Abeghyan calculated

that Koriwn wrote his biography not immediately after Mashtoc's death, but around 443. This is supported by

another of Koriwn's remarks, namely that three years after Mashtoc's death (25) Vahan Amatuni constructed

a church over his grave (26). Abeghyan suggested that theLife of Mashtoc'was written during the period443-51 (27). There seems to be no grounds for challenging this proposal.

The little that is known about the author is gleaned from two statements he makes about himself in Mesrop's

biography. In chapter 12, Koriwn mentions that after receiving his education, he was sent with other students

to various unspecified districts of Armenia to teach the new alphabet (28). In chapter 19 he says that he

studied in Constantinople and then returned to Armenia bringing, along with other manuscripts, the canons of

the Council of Ephesus (29). Thus Koriwn's homecoming took place after 431, the year of the Council.

Because Koriwn's work is a biography of a cultural figure and not a political or military history of Armenia,

theLife contains little detailed information about the Mamikoneans or thesparapetut'iwn. From chapter 12,

one learns that Catholicos Sahak personally taught the alphabet to the Mamikonean folk (orear)"foremostamong whom was Vardan, also called Vardkan" (30). Sahak's special ministrations are perfectly

understandable, since Vardan was Sahak's own grandson. In chapter 26 Koriwn presents a partial list of

dignitaries attending the burial of Mashtoc'. The relevant portion translates: "[Present] from the military, the

first [or foremost, arajnumn] was named Vahan of the Amatuni family [azg] who was the hazarapetof

Greater Armenia, and the second was Hmayeak of the Mamikonean clan [tohm]..." (31). In scholarly

literature the hazarapetusually is associated with civil rather than military matters (32). According to

Koriwn's list, however, the phrase "from the military [i zinuorakan koghmanen]" suggests that in the period

following the abolition of the Armenian Arsacids (428), the hazarapet's function may have been altered to

include military duties.

The onlysparapetmentioned by name in theLife is Anatolis, commander-in-chief of Byzantine Armenia. Inchapter 16, Mashtoc' was received warmly by Anatolis (calledspayapet) who wrote to emperor Theodosius

informing him of Mastoc's plans to teach the alphabet in Western Armenia (33). When Mashtoc' returned

from Constantinople, he presented the emperor's rescripta to Anatolis, now called thesparapetof Armenia

[sparapetn Hayoc'] (34).


5/42

II. "Agat'angeghos"

The compilation of sources known as theHistory of Agat'angeghos concerns the Christianization of Armenia

during the reign of King Trdat the Great (ca. 303-330) and incidents relating to that event. The work has

survived in two important recensions: (1) the Armenian Agat'angelos (Aa) and a Greek translation of it made

perhaps between 464 and 468 (Ag) (35); (2) the ArabicLife of St. Gregory (Va) (36) discovered by Nicholas

Marr in 1902 and the Greek version of this recension (Vg) (37) published by Gerard Garitte. The GreekLife

which Garitte discovered in the Codex X.III.6 of the Library of the Escorial appears to be the hitherto

unknown Greek translation of an Armenian text from which Marr's ArabicLife ultimately derives (38).

Toumanoff believes that Va could not have been translated before the end of the eighth century (39).

In chapter 7 of his classicDocuments pour l'etude du livre d'Agathange, Garitte compared Vg with the other

recensions. He concluded that (1) in general, the Armeno-Greek Agat'angeghos and the Graeco-ArabicLife

of St. Gregory are parallel despite the different ordering of events and the absence or presence of episodes

from one or the other (40); (2) each recension, except Va, has an element peculiar to itself whether this be the

Teaching of St. Gregory in Aa, the revolt of Artashir in Ag, or Vg's story of Gregory's wife (41); (3) Vg is not

a translation of Aa but an entirely different version (42); (4) Va is a concoction of an unabridged recension of

Vg and a text resembling Aa (43).

Thus there are not one but several accounts of the conversion of Armenia, written, compiled, and translated

at different times. Nor is one dealing with an independently written narration, the work of one man's genius.

As Abeghyan pointed out long ago, in the Armenian Agat'angeghos alone the influences of Irano-Armenian

folk tales and Syrian martyrologies are observed (44). The presence of numerous lengthy borrowings from

Koriwn place the compilation of Aa (from which Ag and parts of Va) after 443-450. However, the fact that

the story of Armenia's conversion contains passages which date from the mid-fifth century does not

necessarily mean that "Agat'angeghos" describes a fifth century reality. Toumanoff observed that the

definitely fifth century list of princes which Adontz drew up based on P'arpec'i differs from the one list found

in all four versions of''Agat'angelos".Nine princes appear in the latter list but are absent from P'arpec'i. The

regions represented by many of the princes were part of an Armenian state in the fourth, but not in the fifthcentury. Therefore Toumanoff believes that the historical situation found in the two recensions reflects one

contemporaneous with Armenia's conversion (46).

Concerning the Mamikonean family and thesparapetut'iwn, there is disagreement among the versions. There

are three lists in "Agat'angeghos" which mention thesparapet: (1) The princes accompanying St. Gregory to

Caesarea for ordination: Aa (Venice, 1930). Mentioned fifth in this list is "prince of thesparapetut'iwn.

general of Armenia'' (47); Aa (Tiflis, 1909, critical edition) thesparapetin command of the expedition is

named Artawazd (48); Ag calls this officer thestratopedarch (49); Va as well as Vgs (50) employs a surname

and gives an expanded statement:

Quintus princeps mqwuyn'nwn nomine 'sb'r'b'ts: hic autem praefectus erat exercitui totiusArmeniae, equitum et peditum, nec discedebat a rege magnae Armeniae, atque in bellis omnes

quos memorabimus principes et memorabimus, sub eius potestate erant, praeterquam quod

princeps qmrdl non erat sub eius potestale, quae (regio) est iuxta fortes qrdytn (51).

Vg and Va subsequently mention Artawazd "prince of the Mamikonean and asparapet" (52); (2) The three

envoys sent to Caesarea by Trdat III to fetch Gregory's sons: Aa and Ag record "prince Artawazd,

generalissimo of all the armies of Greater Armenia" as the first envoy (53); Vg does not mention the name of

any of the ambassadors; Va has "primusprinceps 'rtw'zd'(Artawazd) qui praefectus erat patnciorum super

totam regionem Armeniae" (54); (3) The princes accompanying Trdat III to Rome: Aa, "the greatsparapet'"


6/42

(unnamed) is recorded after Trdat's four border-lords, the prince of Angegh district and the coronant (55); Ag

has "the greatstratopedarch" (56) Va and Vg do not contain this passage.

While all versions mention asparapetduring the reign of Trdat III, this officer's first and last names are found

together only in Va and Vg. This circumstance did not escape Movses Xorenac'i, the author of an

anti-MamikoneanHistory of Armenia. For Movses, thesparapetunder Trdat was also an Artawazd, but

Artawazd Mandakuni, not Mamikonean (57). The fifth centuryHistory of P'awstos Buzand, however,

confirms Artawazd Mamikonean as Trdat'ssparapet. In IIl.2, P'awstos calls Vach'e Mamikonean (sparapetof

King Xosrov Kotak) "the son of Artawazd." Presumably, just as Xosrov succeeded his father Trdat as king, soVach'e succeeded his father Artawazd assparapet.

Thesparapetis not an important figure in "Agat'angeghos". Ordinarily the armies appear to be under the

direct control of the monarch, a circumstance which heightens the epic grandeur of the tale. Thus King

Xosrov "assembled the multitude of soldiers and all who had arrived from different parts to aid him in war"

(58). The king divided his army into cohorts (59); he raided Assyria (60). A Christian, "the king and all the

army" destroyed pagan temples (61). The king himself paid and dismissed his troops (62). All military affairs

are in the hands of the king. The king summons his army, or the king, his sister, and the queen summon the

army (63), or even St. Gregory calls the cohorts together for baptism (64). But thesparapet,though he is

mentioned three times, has little to do with the army in this story.


7/42

III. TheHistory of Armenia

TheHistory of Armenia, attributed to P'awstos Buzand, exists in four "books" ordprut'iwnk'. Instead of being

numbered books I, II, III, and IV as one would expect, the first book of the extant text is titled Book III

("Beginning") and is followed by books IV, V, and Vl. The word "End" appears in the chapter heading of

Book VI. The late fifth century historian Ghazar P'arpec'i cites a passage from the text of P'awstos which he

claims was found in Book II.15; however, in our text this same passage is in Book IV.15 (65). In other words,Ghazar's P'awstos Book I is now Book III (''Beginning''). This curious fact led Stepan Malxasyanc' to

speculate that toward the end of the fifth century, after Ghazar P'arpec'i used it, the text of P'awstos Buzand

was placed by an editor as the third history in a book of many histories. This would explain why theHistory

opens with Book III, since the first two books were each one-book histories. Then, Malxasyanc' continues,

the editor wrote in the words "Beginning" and "End" to inform the reader that this particular section was one

complete history in the compilation. The editor's hand also is visible in theHistory's two forwards; in tables of

chapter headings arranged in lists preceding each book; in the chapter headings themselves; and in a

statement at the end of Book III claiming that the work was written in the fourth century by "the great

historian P'awstos Buzand". Furthermore, Malxasyanc' notes that the fifth century editor employed the first

person singular while the fourth century P'awstos Buzand used the plural when referring to himself (66).

Controversy also exists over the author's identity, and over where, in what language, and when this history

was written (67). The question of the dating of this work is of direct concern. Malxasyanc' compiled certain

facts which seem to place the author (P'awstos) in the fifth century. First, P'awstos is familiar with the name

of only one Byzantine emperor (Valens) for almost the entire span of hisHistory i.e., 319-384, when in fact

during this period emperors Constantine, Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valens, Gratian, amd Theodosius the

Great ruled. Since Armenia was in frequent contact with Byzantium during that time, Malxasyanc' argues, a

fourth century writer naturally would know the emperors' names. P'awstos, living in the fifth century, had

only a vague recollection of fourth century emperors and so styled them all Valens. Again, P'awstos contends

that the Armenian king Arshak (350-367) ruled during the time of the Iranian king Nerseh (293-302) and the

Byzantine emperor Valens (364-378), when in fact these last two autocrats were not even contemporaries.

Another important proof of theHistory's fifth century date is its source material, which includes theArmenian translation of the Bible (430's) and Koriwn's biography of Mashtoc'. Finally, in Catholicos Nerses

the Great's curse of the Armenian Arsacids which appears in IV.15, Nerses seems to prophesy the end of the

Arsacid kingdom (68).

P'awstos lacks chronology in the strict sense: he does not mention in which king's regnal year an event

occurred or how long each king reigned. However, he does know the correct sequence of Armenian kings

from Xosrov II Kotak (330-339) to Varazdat (374-378) and mentions each one by name. Despite numerous

problems associated with the text, P'awstos' information still has the greatest value; although he lacks

numerical chronology, the thematic unity on occasion substitutes, nonetheless, for an absolute chronology

(69).

As a historian of the Mamikoneam naxararhouse, P'awstos' desire is to portray the Mamikoneans as the

defenderspar excellence of Armenia. To P'awstos, the Mamikoneans are not merely the only legitimate

military defenders of the country, but also the loyal defenders of the Arsacid family, defenders of the Church,

and defenders ofnaxararrights (70). The contradiction which arises from the fact that P'awstos

simultaneously has made the Mamikoneans defenders of the kings and of the naxararstwo usually inimical

groupsappears to have been resolved by the author by a second assumption that the Mamikoneans are in

fact the equals of the Arsacids.

P'awstos' first assumptionthat the Mamikoneans are the only legitimate military defenders of Armeniais

developed in several ways. The family's legal right to the sparapetut'iwn is stressed throughout. Thus the


8/42

small child Artawazd succeeded his father Vach'e assparapeteven though he clearly was too young to fulfill

the obligations of the office. Two generals, Andok Siwnik' and Arshawir Kamsarakan, looked after the

military affairs of the country during Artawazd's minority, and P'awstos notes that these naxarars were

relatives of the Mamikoneans through marriage, as if to explain how they came to be entrusted with such

responsibility (71). Mushegh becamesparapetimmediately upon the execution of his father Vasak by the

Iranian king (72); Artashir inherited thesparapetut'iwn from his aiIing father Manuel (73) and this automatic

succession is presented as normal procedure.

When the Armenian army is under its legal Mamikoneansparapets, it is invincible. Only when the army is ledby non-Mamikoneans can foreigners overrun Armenia. This happened when King Xosrov (330-339)

appointed Databa Bznuni to ward off an Iranian invasion. Databa deserted to the enemy and almost destroyed

the Armenian army (74). When the Mamikoneans angrily withdrew from court affairs under Xosrov's

successor, Tiran (339-350), (75) the country was invaded once more by the Iranians and the king himself was

blinded and taken captive. The king and the country were vulnerable since there was no one (Mamikonean)

to protect them (76).

Not only do the Mamikoneans protect the country from external enemies such as Iranians or Mask'ut nomads

(77), but as the loyal defenders of their land's bnik ters, the Mamikoneans fight against domestic enemies.

Vach'e,sparapetof Xosrov, was in charge of exterminating the rebellious Manawazean and Orduni clans (78)

and he later exterminated the Bznunis as well (79). During the reign of Pap (368-374),sparapetMusheghMamikonean massacred the clans of the bdesxsh of Aghjnik' and Gugark' who had rebelled against the

authority of the king, and in Iberia he ordered the crucifixion of the P'arawazean clan (80). SparapetVasak

even killed his own Iranian cousin, Dehkan, in defense of Armenia and King Arshak (350-368) (81).

The Mamikoneans' loyalty to the crown is expressed too in the family's role as protectors of the royal line:

Vasak's son Mushegh travelled to the Byzantine empire to install Pap, Arshak's legitimate heir, who was

residing on Byzantine territory, as King of Armenia (82). Manuel Mamikonean was so devoted to the royal

family (or so P'awstos implies) that, like a wise father, he raised the two sons of Pap's son Varazdat

(374-378)a king he had expelled from the country after a dramatic battle (83). In this clash Manuel

prevented his own sons from killing the fleeing Varazdat, just as earlier Mushegh, accused of disloyalty before

Pap, had explained his refusal to kill the Albanian/Aghuanian king Urnayr:

I killed all of my peers [enkerk'] while those wearing crowns were not my peers, but yours.

Come, just as I killed my peers do you kill yours. For I have not, do not, nor shall I put forth my

hand against a royal man who wears a crown. If you wish to kill me, do that but whenever a royal

man falls into my clutches as has happened many times, I will not kill him. I will not kill the

wearer of a crown even if I am killed (84).

The loyalty of the Mamikoneans is so profound that it acquires a supernatural quality. After the Iranian army

had scattered the bones of the Armenian Arsacid kings, desecrating the graves in the royal mausoleum at Ani

of Daranalik',sparapetVasak Mamikonean retrieved these bones and buried them, caring for the memory of

deceased kings and providing for the rest of their souls (85). Supernatural loyalty is also apparent in P'awstos'narration of the fate of the executed Vasak's straw-filled corpse. The sixth century Byzantine author

Procopius who claims to have used a "History of Armenia" says that Shapuhr [Pacurius] flayed Vasak

[Bassicius] and, making a bag of his skin, filled it with chaff and suspended it from a lofty tree (86). P'awstos

preserves the same fate for Vasak but claims that Vasak's body was sent to Anhush fortress where King

Arshak was imprisoned, as if to say that even in death thissparapet, and by implication all the Mamikonean

sparapets, are loyal and near to theirbnik tersthe Arsacid kings of Armenia (87).

As defenders of the Church, the Mamikoneans are depicted as loyal Athanasian Christians and supporters of

Armenia's legitimate Gregorian line of Catholicoi (88). In addition to defending the Church zealously, the

Mamikoneans are the holy warriors of Armenia. During an Athanasian period in Arshak's confusing reign, for


9/42

example,sparapetVasak was ordered to ravage Byzantine lands for six years to avenge the Byzantine arrest

of Nerses (89). Later this same Vasak defeated hosts of Iranian soldiers and an army of Armenian apostates

(90). As a prelude to the return of Nerses to court, Samuel Mamikonean murdered his apostate father Vahan

and his royal Iranian mother (91). By destroying Zoroastrian temples and rebuilding churches, Mushegh

continued this process of restoring the work of Nerses and undoing the damage caused by the pro-Iranian

Vahan (92).

Naturally P'awstos would like his readers to believe that some of the earlysparapets such as Vach'e were not

mere mortals, but the agents of God through whom Armenia enjoyed many victories (93). However, it is inthe personality of the later Mushegh that P'awstos' fanatical pro-Mamikonean bias and his religious worldview

are fused the best. For Mushegh has much in common with Christ. He is the savior of his people, condemned

for his compassion. Betrayed at a banquet reminiscent of the Last Supper, he is attacked and killed by all

twelve "apostles," six on one side and six on the other (94). P'awstos adds that the people expected

Mushegh's resurrection (95).

The other assumption made by P'awstosthat the Mamikoneans are the equals of the Arsacidsis expressed

by direct assertion and by the implications of certain details. The first actual expression of this equality

appears in a dubious passage in V. 4 where King Pap himself sald:

Worthy of death are those who dare to speak ill of Mushegh, a brave and honorable man. For [heis] a man who by family [azg] is as honorable as we, his ancestors as our ancestors His ancestors

left the kingship of the land of Chenk' and came to our ancestors and they lived and died for us.

His father, trustworthy until death, died for my father...

A second claim of equality between the Mamikoneans and the Arsacids was advanced by Manuel during his

battle with king Varazdat (ca. 378) which resulted in the latter's expulsion from the country. Manuel

denounced Varazdat for appointing to thesparapetut'iwn a non-Mamikonean, Bat Saharuni, and added:

You are not an Arsacid, but a bastard. Therefore you do not recognize those who work for the

Arsacids. We are not your servants [carayk'] but your peers [enkerk'] and we are above you. For

our ancestors were kings of the land of Chenk'. Because of a quarrel among brothers, to preventgreat bloodshed we left [that land]. And to find rest we stopped here [in Armenia]. The first

Arsacid kings knew who we were and where we came from. But you, since you are not an

Arsacid, begone from this country and do not perish at my hands (96).

The claim of equality with and fitness for the crown is stressed likewise in the details. The imperial claim even

transends the boundaries of Armenia, since the Mamikoneans are equal or superior to kings anywhere. For

example, Arshak's ill-fatedsparapetVasak boasted to the Iranian king that he stood on two mountains (the

Iranian and Byzantine kings) and that he brought either one to the ground by pushing down with his right or

left leg (97). According to P'awstos, Vasak's brother (the apostate Vahan) was married to the imperial Iranian

Ormizduxt (sister of the Iranian king) (98). A portrait of Pap'ssparapetMushegh appeared on the drinking

goblet of the Iranian king who even toasted the health of his noble enemy (99).

Manuel Mamikonean, who expelled king Varazdat, is in fact a king. He raised Varazdat's children, and

together with queen Zarmanduxt made all the important decisions in the country (100). He sanctioned the

return of land to naxarars Babik, Sam, and Vaghinak Siwnik', and appointed ters and nahapets "in every

district" a traditional prerogative of the monarch (101). Manuel also married his daughter Vardanduxt to

the young Arshak (son of Varazdat) whom he made king (102). Most significant of all is P'awstos' statement

about the gifts sent by the Iranian king to the crown princes Arshak and Vagharshak as well as to thesparapet

Manuel:

The king gave tosparapetManuel a royal robe, a sable, apatiw for his head with a crest of gold


10/42

and silver. On top of this headdress was [the figure of] an eagle and the crown was fastened with

an ashxarawandclasp. On his breast he wore a brooch of honor. [Such things he was given]

which by law only kings have: a tent of red leather and on it an eagle's design, great hangings,

and sky-blue parasols (103).


11/42

IV. Ghazar P'arpec'i'sHistory of Armenia

A late fifth centuryHistory of Armenia by Ghazar P'arpec'i is the product of an author about whom certain

biographical details exist. This information is found in Ghazar'sHistory and in hisLetterto the marzpan of

Armenia, Vahan Mamikonean (marzpan 485-ca. 506). According to these documents, Ghazar was from P'arpi

village in the Aragacotn district and perhaps was a Mamikonean relative (104). He was educated at the home

ofbdeshx Ashusha of Iberia along with Hmayeak Mamikonean's children Vahan, Artashes and Vard (105).

Subsequently under the tutelage of Alan Arcruni (106), Ghazar became a cleric who received part of his

education in Byzantium (1070. According to Manuk Abeghyan, from 484 to 486 Ghazar was a hermit in

Siwnik', but left his cave when his childhood friend, the now marzpan Vahan Mamikonean, invited him to

Vagharshapat to become abbot of the monastery there. For reasons not entirely clear to us, Ghazar eventually

was expelled from the monastery by jealous monks. It was then that he wrote hisLetterto Vahan, refuting the

charges levelled against him. At Vahan's request Ghazar returned to Armenia from his place of refuge, Amida

on Byzantine territory (108). Likewise at Vahan's request Ghazar wrote hisHistory of Armenia (109). This

work is a panegyric to the Mamikonean family generally, and especially a glorification of two of the family's

members: Vardan, leader of the anti-lranian rebellion at Awarayr (450-451) and Vahan, Vardan's nephew and

Ghazar's patron, leader of another anti-lranian uprising known as the Vahaneanc' (481-484).

Accounts of the activities of Vardan and Vahan comprise the contents of Ghazar's Books II and III

respectively. Book I begins with information concerning the division of Armenia between the Byzantine and

Sasanian empires (387), and describes the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the abolition of the

monarchy in the Iranian-controlled eastern sector (428). Toward the end of Book I the death of Catholicos

Sahak in 489 is recorded. One also learns there that because Sahak left no male heir, his property, including

lands in Taron district, passed to his grandchildren Vardan, Hmayeak, and Hamazaspsons of Sahak's

daughter, who was also the wife ofsparapetHamazasp Mamikonean (110). The positioning of this piece of

information close to the end of Book I provides a sort of introduction to the contents of Book II, the exploits

of the adult Vardan. The hero of Book III, Vahan, was the son of Vardan's brother Hmayeak.

The text of Ghazar'sHistory contains one serious lacuna: apparently one or more pages were removed inIII.74, which presumably contained a description of the deaths of Vasak Mamikonean and Sahak Bagratuni as

well as the names of the naxarars who fell in the same battle. Also, several lines in the description of Vahan's

battle near Mt. Jrvezh with the famous Iranian commander Zarmihr Hazarawuxtwhich only confuses the

outcome of the battleare missing or out of place (111). One long section, the "Vision of St Sahak, " in

which Sahak speaks of the fall of the Arsacid kingdom and the discontinuation of the priesthood in the line of

Gregory the Illuminator, is recognized today as a later interpolation (112). The discovery of a lost fragment of

P'arpec'i in 1967, which describes the creation of the Armenian alphabet, has cleared away the confusion

found in theHistory regarding when this event occurred and also cleared Ghazar of the one serious criticism

raised by Abeghyan regarding reliability (113).

Ghazar P'arpec'i cites three authors as sources: Agat'angelos, P'awstos (114), and Koriwn (115). He isreluctant to rely on P'awstos'History since he discovers in it many passages of an anti-clerical and vulgar

nature that lead him to suggest that bishop P'awstos' work was corrupted by some uneducated person. Ghazar

also appears to have used aLife of Alexander(116) and Eusebius'Ecclesiastical History (117). Likewise the

author cites oral informants, most notably Arshawir Kamsarakan (118) and his son Nerses (119) and a Syrian

merchant "Xuzhik" (120), all of whom were participants in the events described.

P'arpec'i is a reasonably trustworthy historian. True, certain of his biases, especially his religious worldview,

occasionally lead him to attribute incorrect causes for some events. Nonetheless, he does know the correct

sequence of Iranian and Byzantine kings as well as of Armenian Catholicoi. His veracity on certain details


12/42

and events may be attested to by other sources. In addition to being our major source on military, political,

and religious developments in fifth century Armenia, Ghazar'sHistory is also a major untapped source on the

history of fifth century Iran (121).

An understanding of Ghazar's biases depends on a knowledge of some of the major political developments

occurring in Armenia since the expulsion of King Varazdat by Manuel Mamikonean. Manuel, as P'awstos

noted toward the end of his history, raised the two sons of the ousted monarch. One of these sons, Arshak III,

became king. However, upon Manuel's death (385) the naxarars revolted against Arshak and appealed to

Shapuhr III for a new Arsacid king. Varazdat's son Xosrov IV was sent to Armenia with an Iranian army andKing Arshak fled west near the Byzantine border for safety. Armenia was divided between Byzantium and

Iran by the Peace of Ekegheac' (387) with the Iranian sector being five times larger than the Byzantine.

Arshak III died in 390 and, with his passing, the Arsacid monarchy was abolished in the western sector. The

princes residing there were placed under an officer appointed by the emperor called the comes Armeniae

(122).

The situation in Persarmenia and in the empire administering it, Iran, was quite different from that which

developed in the west. As a consequence of the division of Armenia in 387, those lands falling to Iran

included most of Arsacid Armenia minus its border districts of Gugark', Utik', Arc'ax, P'aytakaran,

Parskahayk', Korcek', and Aghjnik'which were still subject to Iran but no longer formed part of an

Armenian administrative unit (123). Eastern Armenia was thus reduced to six provinces: Ayrarat, Taruberan,Vaspurakan, Siwnik', Tayk', and Mokk' (124). In the Iranian sector ruled the Armenian Arsacids Xosrov IV

(385-388), Vramshapuh (388-414), and Artashes IV (423-428). King Yazdgard I's son Shapuhr occupied the

Armenian throne between ca. 414 and 421. In 428, at the request of the naxarars, Artashes IV was deposed

and Iranian monarchs began appointing Iranian and Armenian viceroys ormarzpans as their representatives

with Dwin as the administrative seat. Seven of the marzpans are known: Vehmirshapuh, appointed in 428

(125); Vasak Siwnik', ruling at the time of the battle of Awarayr (450-451); Atrormizd Arshakuni, ruling after

Awarayr (126); Yozmandean Atrvshnasp, ruling at the outbreak of Vahan's revolt (481) (127); Shapuh

Mihran, marzpan during the Vahaneanc' (128) and Andekan, an Iranian who ruled briefly and then supported

his replacement in office by the successful rebel Vahan (129).

Ghazar's attitude toward Iran and its policies is one of unequivocal hatred. This is quite understandable, sinceas panegyrist of the Mamikoneans who fought with their lives against lran, he cannot support Iranian policies.

Iranian administrative policy included a definite religio-cultural policy (130). Thus, not only as a Mamikonean

sympathizer, but as a Christian cleric, he cannot tolerate either the implications or the actualities of Iranian

domination (131). P'arpec'i's reaction to Iranian religious policies is expressed in several ways: by repudiation

of all things Zoroastrian, exultation over Zoroastrian reverses, refutations of Zoroastrian beliefs (132),

elevation of Christian martyrs into epic heroes (133) and humiliation of the Syrians whose influence in

Armenia was encouraged by Iran (134).

P'arpec'i also has definite opinions about Armenia's nobility, the naxarars. He divides this aristocracy into

two groups, the oath-keepers and the oath-breakers, i.e., those naxarars who fought loyally on the side of the

Mamikoneans against Iran and those apostates who sided with Iran and so converted to Zoroastrianism.Ghazar says that among the oath-breakers siding with the apostate marzpan Vasak Siwnik' were members of

the Bagratuni, Xorxoruni, Apahuni, Vahewuni, Paluni, Abeghen, and Urc families, some from the royal

family, "and a fewsepuhs from every clan [tohm]" (135). Among the oath-keepers, besides the

Mamikoneans, were members of the Kamsarakan, Arsharuni, Dimak'sean, Abeghen, Amatuni, Arcruni,

Xorxoruni, Paluni, Vahewuni, Mokac', Kajberuni, Araweghen, Gnt'uni, Gnuni, Anjewac'i, Bagratuni, and

Siwnik' houses (136).


13/42

Those naxarars who were traditionally loyal to the Mamikoneans receive great praise from Ghazar who, in

his descriptions of the numerous battles fought, heroically describes their feats of individual bravery. These

are the naxarars imprisoned in Iran after the Vardananc' whom Ghazar portrays as angels on earth and living

martyrs (137). In jail these pious naxarars recalled the moving words of the priest Lewond (138); when

released from captivity, they secretly kept the relics of the martyred priests (139); and, while serving in the

Iranian army, they conducted open and secret religious meetings (140). Occasionally the author speaks of "all

the naxarars," such as the group of nobles who urged Catholicos Sahak to translate the Bible into Armenian

(141), or the group urging the deposed Sahak to resume his duties as Catholicos (142).

However, in both instances, Ghazar apparently is referring to Christian rather than Zoroastrian naxarars.

Likewise the expression "all the naxarars," who slay by lapidation the lord Zandaghan for telling Vasak

Siwnik' details of the planned revolt, refer to the Christian pro-Mamikonean rather than the Zoroastrian,

pro-Iranian naxarars (142).

Throughout the fifth century the naxrarars were strong, independent, and therefore untrustworthy allies. The

naxarars broke their oath to support Vardan's rebeIlion while he was in Albania/Aghuania (144). They

deserted at Awarayr (145). One naxarar, Varaznerseh Urc, broke his oath with Vahan, sacked the city of

Brnavezh, and fortified himself in the castle of Sadra with the loot (146). Garjoyl Maxaz deserted the

Vasakeans (147). Vahan's soidiers, who did not want to fight in Iberia, treacherously swore secret oaths with

the enemy Iranians and deserted Vahan the next day (148). The natural enmity which existed among rival

naxararhouses also received great impetus from the divisive policies of Iran (149).

For P'arpec'i, Vardan and Vahan Mamikonean epitomize resistance both to Zoroastrian Iran and to the

apostate naxarars. There are some general similarities between the descriptions of Vardan and Vahan.

However, it is in the personality of Ghazar's friend and patron Vahan, about whom the information is more

detailed and intimate, that one sees most clearly the author's attitude toward the Mamikoneans.

Because P'arpec'i considered both the Vardananc' and the Vahaneanc' religious wars, his Mamikonean leaders

are holy warriors. They are the protectors of the faithpar excellence. In war they are noble fighters; in war

and peace they care for the poor like good shepherds; uncle and neghew are both portrayed as democratic

leaders. The author's pro-Mamikonean bias is apparent also in his defense of that family against charges madeby Armenia's enemiesthe apostate naxarars. Beyond this, Ghazar wishes his reader to understand that the

Mamikoneans are the equals of the highest Iranian nobility (if not the monarchy) which deeply admires their

prowess. Ghazar's elevation of the Mamikoneans concludes with a hint that the Mamikoneans may in fact be

supernatural beings.

Every event in P'arpec'i'sHistory concerning Armenia's military confrontation with Iran, such as the revolts

of Vardan and Vahan, is simultaneously coupled with an event of great importance in the religious life of the

country. Because these are religious wars, their military directors are depicted as pious and profoundly firm in

the faith.

The muster of the naxarars in Ctesiphon (prior to the Vardananc' rebellion), which resulted in the Armenians'forced conversion to Zoroastrianism, is used by P'arpec'i as a setting for an outpouring of pious speeches by

sparapetVardan. In Yazdgard II's presence, Vardan boldly refused to convert (150). The naxarars then

planned to feign apostasy in order to extricate themselves. They finally convinced Vardan to join them after

his many pious protestations (151). With tears in his eyes, Vardan swore on the Bible that his conversion was

temporary (152). Vardan returned to his land, unable to bear his apostasy, and gloomy that he was unable to

enter chutch (153), he decided to go to Byzantium to live as a Christian (154). Incidents leading up to the

battle of Avarayr also reflect P'arpec'i's sanctification of Vardan. Prior to leaving for Albania to fight, Vardan

entered a church and kissed the Cross (155). Before the battle of Avarayr, Vardan spoke of the Heavenly

Banquet (156) and told his loyal supporters to come forward to receive their haloes (157). Vahan's character


14/42

receives much the same treatment. During a trip to Ctesiphon he was obliged to demonstrate his loyalty by

converting to Zoroastrianism, like his uncle Vardan. Vahan too returned to Armenia greatly grieved over his

conversion and, like Vardan, was soon at the head of an anti-Iranian rebellion (158).


15/42

The Church, for its part, stood loyally behind the Mamikoneans. Not only does the cleric Ghazar make

Vardan, Hmayeak, Vasak, and Vahan into saints, but he openly expresses the Church's gratitude in at least

two passages. Thus the captive Ghewondean priests courageously told Yazdgard II, "We are Vardan's

vardapets and we supported and encouraged him in everything" (159). When Vahan returned from Iran to

Armenia as marzpan, sparapet, and lord of the Mamikoneans, he was met by Catholicos Yovhan bearing the

Cross and the relics of St. Gregory, who is called Vahan's ancestor (160). At a church service soon afterward,

Yovhan read to an overflowing congregation, including Vahan, the fitting passages in Kings concerning

Solomon's coronation by David (161). One feels very strongly that the Armenian Church is metaphoricallyanointing the country's new "king"Vahan.

Though military men, both Vardan and Vahan are compassionate, noble in war and peace. When, for

example, Vardan comes upon Iranian warriors unprepared for battle near Tghmut in Ayrarat, he does not

attack (162). Later, during battle, he tells his brother, the rear-guard Hamazaspean, not to compel the troops

to fight or forcibly prevent desertion (163). Vardan frets about the sons of Vasak Siwni and Ashusha, the

bdeshx held hostage in Iran (164), just as later Vahan fears for the safety of his younger brother Vard, also a

hostage in Iran (165). Caring for the welfare of the poor is said to be Vahan's custom and he does it frequently

throughout his rebellion (166). Furthermore, Vardan and Vahan are also shown as democratic leaders. Thus in

Albania/Aghuania, Vardan seems to ask his men's advice before engaging in battle (167). Vahan refuses to

negotiate with Nixor Vshnaspdat's representatives in private. Instead he bids the envoys to "speak out before

all the soldiers (168)". He insists that the demands made of Valash are not his demands, but the demands of

his men (169).

P'arpec' i'sHistory contains a defense of the Mamikonean family. Part of this defense is entrusted to Vardan

and Vahan who denounce the naxarars as untrustworthy and unappreciative. TheHistory also contains

Ghazar's own defense of the Mamikoneans. For example, when the bdeshx Ashusha obtained from Mihr

Nerseh and Yazdgard II the right to raise Hmayeak Mamikonean's children, Ghazar denounces Ashusha and

makes him seem as ridiculous as possible (170). Similarly, P'arpec'i defends the young Mamikonean princes

Vahan, Vasak, and Artashes from the attacks of jealous naxarars (171).

P'arpec'i equates the Mamikoneans with the highest Iranian nobility (or the monarchy) in a variety of ways.

First he establishes Mamikonean primacy in Armenian affairs. In I.8, where King Arshak flees to the west,

P'arpec'i writes that the Arsacid family is no longer worthy of Ayrarat. Who then is worthy of Ayrarat?

Ghazar does not say. But some of his statements imply that power in Armenia belongs to the Mamikoneans

who, though not Arsacids, were part of the old royal court and have inherited Armenia in the absence of the

land's bnik ters. He is very careful to stress, in speeches placed in the mouths of both Vardan and Vahan, the

hoary association of the Mamikoneans with Armenian affairs. Thesparapets say that their family's history is

known to the naxarars from writings (172); and the naxarars trying to persuade Vardan to convert allude to

these old histories (173). Valash made Vahansparapet"according to the law of his ancestors" (174). In the

absence of Armenia's bnik ters, the family with the oldest claims to participate in Armenia's affairs is the

Mamikonean. They are like the kings. Ghazar implies this again in his description of Vahan's military

maneuvers around Erez, for at that city "everyone obeyed Vahan as though he were king" (175). In the

absence of Arsacid royalty then, the Mamikonean family has become the royalty to Ghazar. As Armenian

royalty, or at least the highest nobility, the Mamikoneans may always interact with the Iranian nobility on

terms of equality.


16/42

P'arpec'i expresses Mamikonean equality with the very highest Iranian nobility in a second effective way. He

frequently portrays the Iranian nobility as especially solicitous of the Mamikoneans whom they often praise.

Thus the death of Vardan was lamented not only by the Zoroastrian hazarapetMihr Nerseh (176), but by

King Yazdgard II himself (177). Vahan supposedly was favored even as a child by the Iranian grandees who

praised him before King Peroz (178). Vahan was toasted by Valash's peace-negotiator Nixor, who also praised

Vahan's bravery (179). When Vahan travelled to Valash's court, the king himself was solicitous about his

guest's comfort and postponed their meeting until Vahan was rested (180). Vahan's speech at court was

praised by the Iranian nobility and his eloquence in speaking at court (atenaxosut'iwn) was said to be divinelygranted (181). Finally, after delivering a speech in which Vahan fearlessly denounced the Iranians and Valash

agreed that Vahan's revolt had been justified (182), the latter was loaded with honors and sent home

triumphantly. Nor are Vardan and Vahan the only Mamikoneans whom imperial Iran took note of. Young

Grigor Mamikonean's brilliance at the head of an Armenian detachment fighting the rebel Zareh was watched

closely by Valash himself (183). The Mamikoneans are equated with the highest nohility and are the favorites

if not the equals of the Iranian kings. Ghazar has marzpan Andekan make the following remarks to Valash

about Vahan:

Who has his grace and intelligence besides you (who are god-like and ahove human nature)?

Boldly I say that there is no one else. There is scarcely a one to compare with him. (184)

This quotation is interesting because therein Vahan is equated with the king of Iran. It is also noteworthy that

the Iranian monarch is said to be god-like and above human nature. For Vahan too is represented as a sort of

superhuman. Thus, despite his unbearable exhaustion, Vahan arranged his troops at Steo village and tried to

raise the men's morale (185). After his soldiers deserted, Vahan made the sign of the Cross and entered battle

like a mythological warrior spirit, the k'aj (186). The Iranian soldiers were afraid to look at his face (187). The

marzpan Shapuh Mihran noted that he had never heard of a commander pitting ten men against three

thousand troops as Vahan did (188). Vahan is not human; like a k'aj of former times (189), he is fighting his

enemy "like an eagle swooping down on a flock of partridge" (190). He can ford a swollen river safely after

making the sign of the Cross (191). His work is above human deeds, "let the listener think what he will" (192).

Ghazar P'arpec'i'sHistory of Armenia contains references to fivesparapets: Theodosius II'ssparapetin

Antioch named Anatol; Peroz'sparapetVahram; Hamazasp Mamikonean; his famous son Vardan; and

Vahan, the latter's nephew. P'arpec'i has little to say about Anatol beyond the information that thissparapet

was one of the parties appealed to for aid by the Vardaneanc' and that partly due to Anatol's meddling,

Theodosius decided against helping the rehels in 450-451. Information ahout the Iraniansparapetis also

limited, although it is fuller than what P'arpec'i presents on the Byzantine officer designated by the same title.

Peroz'sparapetVahram is mentioned twice. According to Ghazar, Vahram along with other Iranian grandees

unsuccessfully attempted to dissuade Peroz from warring on the Hepthalites. Peroz, however, refused to heed

his advice (193). Ghazar's second reference to the Iraniansparapetprovides no proper name hut instead deals

with the prerogatives of any Iraniansparapet. Prior to being brought back into the service of the Iranian

crown, the rebel Vahan rode into the camp of King Valash's peace-negotiator Nixor with his trumpets

sounding. Nixor, alarmed, sent a message to Vahan, saying that he was not observing Aryan custom and that

he should. Nixor says that only the Aryansparapethas the right to such a prestigious entry. Vahan haughtily

replied that he is already familiar with Iranian customs and will obey such customs only when he is the vassal

of the Iranian king (194). Until that time Vahan obviously considered himself the equal of the Iranian

sparapet, one of whose prerogatives the Armeniansparapettemporarily appropriated.

P'arpec'i's specific information on the Armeniansparapetut'iwn concerns not traditional rights, but the new

rights whichsparapetVahan asserted. During the Vahaneanc' uprising, a separate Mamikonean

administration was set up in Armenia under Vahan's ultimate direction. Thus at the outset of his revolt, having

"received hissparapetut'iwn first from God and second from the will of the Armenian people", Vahan

appointed as marzpan Sahak Bagratuni, who is presented as the Mamikonid counterpart to Yozmandean


17/42

Atrvshnasp, the Iranian-appointed marzpan of Armenia (195). SparapetVahan also directed his

administration by naming pro-Mamikoneans as lords of certain districts held during the struggles by

pro-Iranian apostate naxarars. Most likely this circumstance explains the statement that on the eve of the

Vahaneanc', Vahan's comrade-in-arms Babgen Siwnik' was appointed prince of the Siwnik' terut'iwn despite

the fact that Gdihon Siwnik was still alive and apparently ruling Siwnik' as lord, like Vasak and Varazvaghan

before him, with the complete support of Iran (196).

The highly sensitive and unstable situation in which many naxararhouses found themselves during the fifth

century made activities of the generalissimo, such as arranging the wings of his army or encouraging thesoldiers, very difficult. Not only was desertion frequent as seen already, but the deliberate dissemination of

misinformation by thc enemy made things more complicated yet. Thus Vargos Gnt'uni and Vasak Saharuni

reported to Catholicos Yovhan, marzpan Sahak, andsparapetVahan that Vasak Mamikonean and the flower

of the country's military had heen defeated, when in fact they had been the victors (197). Later, false

messages were sent to Vahan from Iberia claiming that after a disastrous hattle there many knights were alive

and safe, when the opposite was true. This message was sent with the expectation that Vahan immediately

would dispatch half his army to rescue the survivors, thereby reducing his ability to resist the Iranians in

Armenia (198). Under such conditions of disunity among the naxarars, because of the terrain and the

overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy, resistance usually took the form of guerilla warfare (199).


18/42

The core of the Armenian resistance consisted of the pro-Mamikonean noble families listed ahove, many of

whomas both Vardan and Vahan observedwere related to each other (200). In addition to the noble

participants, Ghazar notes the very active presence of infantrymen (ramiks) in the Armenian army (201).

From the fact that a Greek named Gherpargos died fighting on Vahan's side, it seems that the army may have

included Byzantine volunteers or mercenaries (202). The north Caucasian Huns too were an element that the

sparapets considered including in the army. Vardan, after wresting from the Iranians control of the Iron Gates

at Derbend, sent a royal Albanian/Aghuan named Vahan to various Hun generals and a military alliance was

made (203). Vriw accused Vahan of planning to hire Hun or Byzantine mercenaries (204). Vaxt'ang promisedHun auxiliaries to Vahan (205) and he himself expected Hun support for his own rehellion (206). Some three

hundred Huns did in fact arrive in Armenia to help Vahan, but soon were recalled by Vaxt'ang (207).

The importance which Iran attached to both the Vardananc' and Vahaneanc' rebellions is seen clearly from

the ranks of Iranian officers sent against thesparapets. Vardan was pursued by the famous hazarapetMihr

Nerseh himself (208). Likewise the Iranian Vehshapuh, who had been chamberlain (senekapan) and

chancellor (atenadpir), participated in the campaign against Vardan (209), as did of course Armenia's

marzpan Vasak Siwnik' who had previously been marzpan of Iberia (210). Vahan was opposed by the

marzpan of Atrpatakan (211), the Iranian marzpan Atrvshnasp (2l2), the marzpan of Armenia Shapuh Mihran

(213) and the generals Zarmihr (214) and Nixor Vshnaspdat (2l5). One detachment of Iranians planning to

attack Vahan from the districts of Her and Zarewand, included Suren Pahlaw, Atrvshnasp (overseer of the

bodyguards), Vin-i Xorean, Itapean Atrvshnasp, and the Siwnik' Prince Gdihon. Ghazar writes: "Although

there was one of greater authority (ishxanut'iwn) among them, nonetheless, the commandant and head of the

troops was the overseer of the bodyguards (216)".

This last comment is particularly interesting since a very similar remark was made before Yazdgard II by

sparapetVardan himself. The capable Vardan admitted that some of the lords of Armenia, Iberia, and

Albania/Aghuania surpassed him in authority and yet he, not they, was thesparapet(217). Thirty years later

Valash's nobility made Vardan's nephewsparapet"according to the law of his ancestors (218)". Tradition

here, it seems, is invoked by Ghazar for reasons already mentioned. During the fifth century, the

Mamikoneans weresparapets not so much because of tradition, but because of their own organizational and

military geniusto say nothing of their ambition. In a century of concerted Iranian efforts to assimilate

Armenia forcibly or through subtle means, Armenian Arsacid tradition had little importance to Sasanian Iran.

After unsuccessfully trying to destroy the Mamikonean family by killing senior members in war and trying to

splinter the family inheritance, Iran finally was forced to recognize the reality it had helped to create in

Armenia and was obliged to adopt for the moment a more conciliatory policy toward the Mamikonean family

and Armenia in general.

Conclusions

The sources examined in this study permit the construction ofa list of Armeniansparapets. The earliest

known commander of the Armenian army was Artawazd Mamikonean,sparapetduring the reign of King

Trdat III (303-330). The last Mamikoneansparapetwithin the chronological limits of this study was Vahan,

who was marzpan of Armenia in addition to beingsparapet.

1. Authentic fifth century sources aIl indicate that thesparapetut'iwn was an office held by the Mamikonean

family. However, these sources are not explicit on the nature of the transmission of the office. Although there

was no requirement for direct patrilineal inheritance in a tun, ordinarily thesparapetut'iwn passed from father

to son. Thus Artawazd was the father ofsparapetVach' e, who was the father of Artawazd. But it is not


19/42

known if Arshak'ssparapetVasak was Artawazd's son. Pap'ssparapetMushegh was the son of Vasak, but it

is not known in what relationship Manuel Marnikonean stood to Mushegh. The relationship between Manuel's

son Artashir andsparapetHamazasp Mamikonean (St. Sahak's son-in-law) is not clear. SparapetVahan was

the nephew, not son, of Vardan.

Apparently thesparapetut'iwn belonged to the head ortanuterof the family, although as a consequence of

Arshak's restoration of the Mamikoneans, Vasak was given thesparapetut'iwn while Vardan was "appointed"

tanuter(PB. IV.2). The sources record only one instanceduring the reign of the "false king"

Varazdatwhen thesparapetut'iwn was held by a non-Mamikonean. The office soon was seized by Manuel,however, who killedsparapetBat Saharuni and expelled Varazdat.

The sources frequently dwell on the loyalty of the Mamikoneansparapets to theirbnik ters, the kings of

Armenia, during the period of the Arsacid dynasty. According to P'awstos Buzand, the Mamikoneans are the

only legitimate defenders of Armenia's kings from internal and external enemies. Their loyalty to king and

country achieves a supernatural quality as do thesparapets themselves. However, following the murder of

sparapetMushegh by King Varazdat, an act subtly compared by P'awstos to the betrayal of Christ, the

situation changes. At this time, though, the Arsacids become unworthy of the Armenian throne. Manuel was

obliged to seize thesparapetut'iwn and expel the king. P'awstos follows these developments by advancing the

theory of Mamikonean equality with the Arsacids. Apparently, throughout the fifth century following the

deposition of the Arsacids, the equation of the Mamikoneans with royalty formed a part of the propaganda ofthe Mamikonean family. For Ghazar P'arpec'i, the Mamikoneans epitomize resistance to Zoroastrianizing

enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus are not only outstanding military leaders, but zealous defenders of

the Church. In the absence of Arsacid royalty, P'arpec'i equates the Mamikoneans with royalty and, like

P'awstos, makes thesparapets the equals of kings anywhere and occasionally supernatural beings.

3. The sources present no information on the traditional prerogatives of the Armeniansparapet. To a large

degree this is the result of the nature of the sources themselves, which tend to be epic and eulogistic and the

creations of biased clerics directly patronized by the Mamikonean family. For this reason it is impossible to

draw any conclusions about the similarities or dissimilarities between the Armenian sparapetand the Iranian

Eran-Spahbad.


20/42

SparapetList for

Fourth-Fifth Century Armenia

MonarchSparapet

303-330 Trdat III,

the GreatArtawazd Mamikonean

330-339 Xosrov II Kotak

Vach'e Mamikonean, son of Artawazd (PB III.4) Artawazd,

child son of Vach'e, is made sparapet. During his childhoodhis relatives by marriage, Arshawir Kamsarakan and Andok

Siwnik',control the army (PB III.11).

339-350 Tiran

Under Vasak and Artawazd the Mamikoneans withdrew to

Tayk' (PB III.18). Arshawir Kamsarakan and Andok Siwnik'

apparently are in charge of the army following Tiran's

blinding and before Arshak's restoration of the Mamikoneans

(PB III.20).

350-367 ArshakVasak (PB IV.3). Restoration of the Mamikoneans. Vasak'sson Mushegh returns Pap to Armenia, accompanied by

stratelatTerentius and Count Ade. Mushegh becomes

zoravar-sparapet(PB V.1).

367-374 Pap

Hayr (Dghak) mardpet, placed in charge of the eastern

border by Terentius and Mushegh, defects and is replaced by

Gnel Anjewac'i (PB V.6).

374-378 Varazdat

Bat Saharuni. Mushegh is the power behind the throne until

his murder by Varazdat. Manuel Mamikonean returns to

Armenia after imprisonment in Iran. He seizes the

sparapetut'iwn, kills Bat and his sons, and expels

Varazdat(PB V.37). Manuel Mamikonean (385). Artashir,

son of Manuel (PB V. 44).

430's-440's? Hamazasp Mamikonean (GHP I.18).

d. 450-451 Vardan Mamikonean, son of Hamazasp (GHP II).

480's-506? Vahan Mamikonean, nephew of Vardan (GHP III).


21/42

1 H. Hubschmann,Armenische Grammatik, I. Armenische Etymologie (Leipzig, 1895), p. 240; F. Justi,

Iranisches Namenbuch (1895, repr. Hildesheim, 1963), p. 306.

2 The Armenian and Iranian social patterns also show numerous similarites. In Armenia, as in Iran, supreme

power was exercised by a monarch ever engaged in a struggle against his own family, the nobility, and

frequently against the clergy as well. In both societies the power of the nobility tended to increase with the

consolidation of the state apparatus. An explanation frequently given for this phenomenon is that during the

establishment of a new royal clan, in the process of overthrowing the old royal clan and its noble allies, the

would-be monarch was forced to rely on the armed might of the country's dynasts who possessed large

private armies. Following the seizure of power from the previous ruling clan, the new monarch was obliged to

give gifts to his loyal comrades-in-arms. Such gifts were in the form of land grants.

A second stage in the growth of the nobles power came as the state increased in size or was centralized. To

administer his realm, the monarch had no choice but to turn again to the most powerful rulers of the land and

distribute the most important offices to them. Among these "most powerful rulers of the land" must be

included not merely the king's noble supporters, but also the aboriginally powerful dynasts and clan leaders

whose true power in a particular locality was not only more firmly established than that of the king, but also

frequently predated it. Thus as Iranists and Armenists have noted, a mixed bureaucracy existed in both

societies composed of dynasts receiving office in recognition of their ancient and real military rights and of

royal appointees (such as junior members of the royal clan) through which later group the monarch tried to

maintain or expand his control over the nobility. Again in both societies a hereditary principle operated which

meant that offices and land grants remained in a particular family as inalienable possessions. This meant in

Armenia, for example, that if thesparapetdied or was killed, another member of the same family had to fill

the vacant position. In the case of land-holdings, the king could not reclaim his grants and could not

confiscate one family's lands without first exterminating the entire clan since as long as one male member of

the clan survived, the family holdings could be reclaimed and the clan gradually reestablished when the

surviver reached maturity. Any attempt on the part of the crown to alter their rights and privileges was

resisted militarily by the nobllity.

In both Iran and Armenia it was through an oath of personal allegiance sworn before the king that a noble

expressed his "vassalage" or recognized the king's military superiority. The oath of allegiance carried with it

the obligation of military service. Each noble was assigned agah (seat, place) at royal assemblies based on

the number of cavalry he could provide.

As Adontz, Christensen, Widengren, and others have shown, the Armenian social, ethnic, and military

vocabularies bear a heavy Iranian stamp. For example, (Arm.) nahapet-Ir. nafapat;ishan-xshana;zoravor-

zoravar; azg-azg;patiw-patev;shnorh-shnorh. Most revealing of all, the names of the Armenian nobles

themselves are often Iranian: Varaz, Bagarat, Vahan, Vardan, Vagharsh, Vasak, etc.

These and other similarities in Armenian and Iranian society led Widengren to comment:

Comme ces faits armeniens nous ont servi a confirmer que les conditions decrites dans le SN[Shahname) sont valables pour des temps ante-islamiques, les faits armeniens peuvent aussi servir

a supplement pour la periode parthe meme en Iran proprement dit et ensuit pour la periode

sassanide.

See G. Widengren, "Recherches sur le Feodalisme iranien", Orientalia Suecana, V (1956); 94 andpassim. R.

Frye, The Heritage of Persia (New York, 1963); and N. Adontz,Armenia in the Period of Justinian, N.

Garsoian, trans. -ed. (Lisbon, 1971),passim.

3 A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides (2nd ed.. Copenhagen, 1944), p. 99.


22/42

4Ibid., p. 370.

5Ibid., p. 132.

6 Widengren, op. cit., p. 108. The great value of Widengren's study is that the author frequently draws upon

Armenian sources to fill some of the many gaps in our understanding of the Iranian social pattern. As a result

of this study Widengren equates certain Armenian and Iranian terms such as "servant"/"vassal" (Arm. caray.

Ir. bandak), house/holdings (Arm. tun, Ir. katak), decree (Arm. hrovartak. Ir.fravartak), military

detachment/banner (Arm. drawshs, Ir. drafsa) and others. Widengren, pp. 93-94.

7 Adontz, op.cit., p. 185.

8Ibid., p. 340.

9Ibid., p. 362.

10Ibid., p. 288.

11 C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian CaucasianHistory (Georgetown, 1963), p. 209.

12Ibid., p. 97 n. 144.

13Ibid., p. 141 n. 253.

14Ibid., p. 211 n. 238.

15Ibid., p. 325.

16 The earliest use of the termsparapetis found in the Bible, translated by different hands soon after the

creation of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century. Usuallysparapetis given as the equivalent for

Greekstrategos (I. Ezra 3. 14; I Maccabees 2.66, 14.47; II Macc. 3.5, 4.4, 8.8, 8.9; III Kings 2.22, 2.31;

Judith 2.4, 2.5).

17 N. Akinean, "Elishe vardapet ew iwr patmut'iwn hayoc' paterazmi [Eghishe Vardapet and His History of

the Armenian War), Handes Amsoreay, 1931-32; 1933-34; 1935-37; 1950-51.

18 See note 219 on Xorenac'i.


23/42

19 Vark' Mesrovbay [The Life of Mesrovb], S.Y. Banean, ed. (Boston, 1951), ch. 1, p. 1 (hereafter Koriwn).

20 Ghazar P'arpec'i'sHistory of Armenia andLetter to Vahan Mamikonean (Ghazar P'arpec'u Hayoc'

Patmut'iwn ew Tught' arh Vahan Mamikonean), M. Ter-Petroseanc', trans. (Alexandropol, 1895), II.57, pp.

212-14.

21 Koriwn, ch. 14, p. 21.

22Ibid., ch. 28, p. 43.

23Ibid., ch. 24, pp. 36-37.

24Ibid.

25 M. Abeghyan,Hayoc' Hin Grakanut'yan Patmut'iwn (History of Ancient Armenian Literature), Vol. I

(Erevan, 1968), "Koriwn Vardapet" pp. 170-179. An abridged English translation appears as the introduction

to theLife of Mashtotz(New York, 1964), B. Norehad trans. and ed., pp. 9-20.

26 Koriwn, ch. 26, p. 40.

27 Abeghyan, op.cit., p. 171.

28 Koriwn, ch. 12, p. 19.

29Ibid., ch. 19, p. 30.

30Ibid., ch. 12, p. 20.

31Ibid., ch. 26, p. 39.

32 On the hazarapetsee J. Markwart, "Hazarapet",Handes Amsoreay (1898), 316-21.

33 Koriwn, ch. 16, p. 24.

34Ibid., p. 26. Koriwn is careful to distinguish Byzantine from Arsacid or Eastern Armenia. In chapter 16 he

speaks of "the districts [wherein resided] half the Armenian people, under the authority of the emperor (i

gawars kes azgin Hayoc' yishxanut'eann kayser]". Unquestionably Anatolis is thesparapetof Byzantine

Armenia only.


24/42

35 Such a late translation date for Ag would explain why such an important figure as St. Gregory is

unmentioned by Koriwn and mentioned only in passing by the pious cleric Ghazar P'arpec'i writing at the end

of the fifth century. Garitte concludes that excepting the Teaching of St. Gregory and the interpolated story

of Artashir's revolt, Ag is a faithful translation of Aa made by an Armenian. See G. Garitte,Documents pour

l'etude du livre d'Agathange (Vatican City, 1946), pp. 1-16 and p. 333 (hereafter Garitte). The present study

was completed in 1975, before the appearance of R.W. Thomson's edition of Agat'angelos (Albany, 1976).

Readers may now consult that work which contains a reprint of the Tiflis, 1909 Armenian text accompanied

by an English translation. Thomson's introduction provides the most recent review of the versions as well assupplementary bibliography.

36Ibid., pp. 16-18.

37Ibid., pp. 18-19.

38Ibid., p. 19.

39 See Toumanoff's review of Garitte's study in Traditio, 5 (1947) pp. 380-1.

40 Garitte, p. 33,3.

41Ibid.

42Ibid., p. 334.

43Ibid., pp. 334-335.

44 Abeghyan, op.cit., pp. 182-183.

45Ibid., p.186 n. 14.

46 Toumanoff's review op.cit., pp. 382-383.

47 N. Adontz,Armenia in the Period of Justinian, Appendix III, 72*. The Appendices were compiled by N.

Garsoian (hereafter Garsoian).

48 Ag Garitte, p. 203; AaT #860, p. 451.

49 Ag, # 135; Garsoian, 74 *.

50 Garitte, p. 72; Vg, #98.

51Ibid., p. 72; Va, #86.

52 Garitte, p. 83; Vg, #124; Va, #112.

53 Aa, #860; Ag, # 160.

54 Garitte, p. 105; Va, # 163.

55 Garsoian, 75 *; Aa, 163.

56 Garsoian, 76*; Ag, #164.

57 Movses Xorenac'i,Hayoc' Patmut'iwn (History of Armenia) St. Malxasyanc' trans. (Cairo, 1953), II. 85.


25/42

Also P. Hapozean, "Another Falsification by Xorenac'i: Artawazd Mandakuni or Mamikonean?",Handes

Amsoreay, (1910):17-18 (Arm). See note 219 helow.

58 The French translation of Ag #11 in Collection d'historiens anciens et modernes de l'Armenie, Langlois

ed. (Paris, 1867-1869), Agathange, p. 116.

59 Ag, #12; Agathange, p. 118.


61 Ag. #129; Agathange, p. 164.


63 Ag, #135; Agathange, p. 169.

64 Ag, #149; Agathange, p. 177.


26/42

65 Ghazar P'arpec'i, op.cit., I.15.

66P'awstos Buzand, S.T. Malxasyanc' trans. (Erevan, 1968), pp. 18-19. On the dprut'iwnk', ibid., pp. 6-7.

67 There are references in the text to a P'awstos of Greek nationality (III, end), a bishop P'awstos who

ordained the future Catholicos Nerses the Great deacon (IV.3), a P'awstos who was one of a twelve-member

council to assist Nerses as Catholicos (VI.5), and a P'awstos who buried Nerses (V.24). If these are all the

same figure and the author then he would have been living in the 50s and 60s of the fourth century during the

time of Nerses Catholicos. Now, because of P'awstos' appellation Buzand(eay) and the fact that he is said tobe of Greek nationality, some scholars have argued that P'awstos was a late fourth century Greek bishop who

wrote in Greek (hisHistory being translated into Armenian in the fifth cemtury); or perhaps he was an

Armenian from Byzantine-controlled Western Armenian (Buzanda); a fifth century cleric educated in the

Byzantine empire; or simply P'awstos from an Armenian town called Buzanda (Malxasyanc' pp. 25-29). The

question of P'awstos identity is by no means a new one. This question was raised already in the late fifth

century by Ghazar P'arpec'i who refused to believe that any Bishop P'awstos could have included certain

vulgar and anti-clerical passages that he laments discovering in P'awstos'History. The offended Ghazar thinks

that the bishop'sHistory was later corrupted by an uncultured person who assumed the distinguished name of

P'awstos (after the bishop P'awstos found in the text) to increase the prestige of his compilation of stories

(Ghazar P'arpec'i, op.cit., I. 3-4). Who P'awstos was and what should be understood by Buzandeay are still

unsolved problems. See also note 220.

68 Malxasyanc', pp. 29-30.

69 Professor N. Garsoian in her article on fourth century Armenia "Politique ou orthodoxie? L'Armenie au

quatrieme siecle"Revue des Etudes armeniennes, n.s. IV ( 1967) pp. 297-320), has provided an explanation

for P'awstos' unfavorable statements about certain Armenian kings, starements which are directly

contradicted in contemporary Byzantine sources. Because of the fused nature of religious and political

allegiance in this period, the Armenian kings politically allied with Byzantium were required to follow "every

twist and turn of the Imperial Arianizing policies," a situation which probably prompted the murders of the

Armenian Athanasian Catholicoi Yusik and Daniel (c. 348) and Nerses (c. 373) by Arianizing monarchs. By

placing side by side two chronological tables showing the political and religious developments in theByzantine Empire and in Armenia, professor Garsoian very convincingly shows the correlation between

Imperial religious policies and the religio-political events taking place in Armenia. P'awstos, who is orthodox

(Athanasian), has nothing but hatred for Armenia's Arianizing kings and he accuses them of spiritual and

moral bankruptcy. What is important for our purposes is that P'awstos' bias in the case of the kings is

systematic. He has given us a sort of chronology for the fourth century which, though lacking absolute

figures, very neatly dovetails with more easily datable events in ByzantineHistory. P'awstos Buzand s

information on the Mamikoneansparapets of fourth century Armenia is also systematically biased and

likewise is contradicted by the reliable Byzantine writer Ammianus Marcellinus (b. ca. 330) who not only

lived in the very times he described but even travelled to the East in 363 with Emperor Julian. On Ammianus

see note 220 below.

70 Undernaxararlaw operating in the fourth and fifth centuries, a clan's holdings could be appropriated by

the crown only if every male member of the clan in question was killed. If but one male baby was preserved,

when the child reached maturity he could reclaim his family's landsand the king was obliged to recognize

the validity of the claim. The Mamikoneans appear as defenders of the naxararrights in their capacity as

preservers and nourishers of innocent and helpless children from clans which kings Xosrov II, Tiran, and

Arshak tried to exterminate. Thus Vach'e raised the son of rebel bdeshx Bakur of Aghjnik' (PB III.9); Vasak

and Artawazd raised Rshtuni and Arcruni children whom they had savedwithdrawing from court and even

returning to Tiran his son Arshak whom they had been raisingin order to restore two naxararclans (PB III.

18); finally, by protecting and raising the little Kamsarakan prince Spandarad, Vasak Mamikonean prevented


27/42

king Arshak from appropriating for long the Kamsarakan holdings in Shirak and Arsharunik' (PB IV.l9).

71 P'awstos Buzand (PB)Historyof Armenia [P'awstosi Buzandac'woy Patmut'iwn Hayoc'], K. Patkanean,

ed. (Venice, 1889), III.11.

72 PB, V.I.

73Ibid., V.44.

74 PB, III.8.

75 PB, III.18.

76 PB, III.20.

77 PB III. 5-6.

78 lbid.

79 PB, III.8.

80 PB, V.15-16.

81 PB, IV.32.

82 PB, IV.55.

83 PB, V.37.

84 PB, V.4. Each of the two occasions when Mamikoneans do kill "royal men" may be justified on the

grounds that the executors were acting under the orders of the king. Thus (1)sparapetVach'e brought to

Xosrov the bleeding head of the king's Arsacid relative Sanesan. But Sanesan had rebelled against Armenia

and, perhaps a greater sin to P'awstos, had murdered the 12-year-old Grigoris II, son of the Armenian

Catholicos Vrt'anes and grandson of St. Gregory (PB III.6); (2) On king Arshak's express instruction Vardan

Mamikonean, older brother of thesparapetVasak, killed Arshak's nephew Gnel, allegedly for coveting the

crown (PB IV.15).

85 PB, IV.24.

86 Procopius,Historyof the Wars, H. Dewing, tr. (London, 1912), I.v.40.

87Ibid., I.v.28; PB, IV.54.

88 Thus, while Vasak Mamikonean's name appears in P'awstos' list of notables accompanying bishop P'arento Caesarea for ordination as Catholicos (PB III. 17), the Mamikonean name is noticeably absent from the

group ofnaxarars taking P'aren's successor Sahak Aghbianos to the same city and returning with him to king

Tiran (339-350). Or else the Mamikoneans were present but PB suppressed their name. The list of the group

accompanying Sahak is more vague than most (III.17). It is no wonder that in his saga P'awstos minimizes the

Mamikonean association with Tiran: for the Arianizing Tiran had murdered P 'aren's two predecessors, the

Catholicos Yusik and Daniel (c. 348), and it was during Tiran's reign that the Mamikoneans withdrew from

court. It is one thing to accompany a future Catholicos to Caesarea for ordination and quite another to deliver

up to an Arianizing king his own hand-picked candidate from a rival line. The delegation traveling with P'aren

to Caesarea was the last to accompany a cleric who, though perhaps not a Gregorid and one who

"reprimanded no one" (i.e., Tiran), still appears to have been somewhat acceptable to the author (PB III.16;


28/42

Adontz, pp. 274-275). Following P'aren's death soon afterward, subsequent delegations sent to accompany

crown-selected Albianid Catholicoi included the arch-fiend Hayrmardpet. Vasak, accompanying P'aren, had

been part of the last group of "loyalists", pro-Gregorid representatives of the most noble families including

Mehendak Rshtuni, Andok Siwnik', and Arshawir Kamsarakan (PB III.16). Dramatically and with swords

drawn, Vasak and Artawazd Mamikonean withdrew from court to their patrimonial holdings in Tayk',

protect